hrryxgg
Established
ok, ok.
please be patient with me! i am asking the pros here b/c i do not know the answer!
in brief: i have been using the contax g2 and want to switch to digital. money is not really a major concern, but value and technology etc are...
the canon EOS 5D mark II for example. what is the critical plus to the M9 vs something like this canon?
can someone break it down for me?
so many thanks!
please be patient with me! i am asking the pros here b/c i do not know the answer!
in brief: i have been using the contax g2 and want to switch to digital. money is not really a major concern, but value and technology etc are...
the canon EOS 5D mark II for example. what is the critical plus to the M9 vs something like this canon?
can someone break it down for me?
so many thanks!
bene
Established
Get the M9 =) why? contax is a rangefinder. But you might have to get used to the manual focus. 5d mrk 2 is bigger and more obvious if you shoot street. If your age is catching up i suggect the M9. for your infomation I am a Leica fanboy =)
cs_foto
Member
You cannot get a 50mm Sonnar for the Canon. You can use it with the M9.
That's my convincing argument.
That's my convincing argument.
rya
Established
I second IdeaDog. There is an enormous amount of information about this on this site and on the rest of the internet.
I might be able to save you time, though. Considering that you are pondering buying a $7k M9 without knowing the advantages, maybe you should just buy an M9, a Nikon D3s and a Canon 5dII and see which you like best. I don't mean this in a rude way, but a lot of people end up dabbling to figure out what they like anyways, so I say go ahead and see what works best and sell what doesn't for little loss.
I might be able to save you time, though. Considering that you are pondering buying a $7k M9 without knowing the advantages, maybe you should just buy an M9, a Nikon D3s and a Canon 5dII and see which you like best. I don't mean this in a rude way, but a lot of people end up dabbling to figure out what they like anyways, so I say go ahead and see what works best and sell what doesn't for little loss.
swoop
Well-known
There is no one vs the other. it's which you prefer. Both have pluses and minuses. There are times I really wish I had a DSLR. It would probably make my life and my job a lot easier. But I always get more frustrated with the DSLR's annoyances than I do it's bonuses. So I keep using a Leica.
More than a few times I've had pro's say to me they wish they could use an M for their work. And I always think to myself "Why can't you? I do." Sometimes it is a pain to have to have to switch lenses for different focal lengths and that the highest ISO I can use is 1250 with noise reduction without getting crap from my editor about image quality and only being able to take about 450 shots per battery and never knowing just when it's going to die because it has a 3 step indicator. But I love the quality images I get. The fact that it's really light and easy to carry around. That everything is super easy to control and familiar. That my focus is always spot on and I can do it in complete darkness.
Maybe a Canon 1D/Nikon D3 and a 24-70 could do about 80% of the assignments I do. It has crossed my mind. What if I used that M9 money to get myself a DSLR. I could get a body and a really sweet lens. And maybe even sell off my M8 and M mount lenses. I could easily afford a primo DSLR setup that would have me ready for any situation. But there's just something special about using a Leica.
More than a few times I've had pro's say to me they wish they could use an M for their work. And I always think to myself "Why can't you? I do." Sometimes it is a pain to have to have to switch lenses for different focal lengths and that the highest ISO I can use is 1250 with noise reduction without getting crap from my editor about image quality and only being able to take about 450 shots per battery and never knowing just when it's going to die because it has a 3 step indicator. But I love the quality images I get. The fact that it's really light and easy to carry around. That everything is super easy to control and familiar. That my focus is always spot on and I can do it in complete darkness.
Maybe a Canon 1D/Nikon D3 and a 24-70 could do about 80% of the assignments I do. It has crossed my mind. What if I used that M9 money to get myself a DSLR. I could get a body and a really sweet lens. And maybe even sell off my M8 and M mount lenses. I could easily afford a primo DSLR setup that would have me ready for any situation. But there's just something special about using a Leica.
Last edited:
hrryxgg
Established
thanks....
thanks....
thanks for the responses so far.
i understand the critique that there is so much info out there, and i should do research first. and i have. i just thought that there would be someone more fluent, more versed in the nuts and bolts of the mass amount of info out there that would not mind boiling down some of it for me. and to hear the enthusiasts opinions.
the canon does seem to big for me. and i do like and have always wanted a leica. and i do really want to go digital.
when i went to a shop here in sf, the salesperson thought it unwise to go with a leica digital as for half the money one could do much better technologically speaking with a DSLR while not compromising image quality. did not make sense to me.
so, in essence, the question comes from his .02c which i cannot even really recall now.
the M9 or a DSLR?
thanks....
thanks for the responses so far.
i understand the critique that there is so much info out there, and i should do research first. and i have. i just thought that there would be someone more fluent, more versed in the nuts and bolts of the mass amount of info out there that would not mind boiling down some of it for me. and to hear the enthusiasts opinions.
the canon does seem to big for me. and i do like and have always wanted a leica. and i do really want to go digital.
when i went to a shop here in sf, the salesperson thought it unwise to go with a leica digital as for half the money one could do much better technologically speaking with a DSLR while not compromising image quality. did not make sense to me.
so, in essence, the question comes from his .02c which i cannot even really recall now.
the M9 or a DSLR?
hrryxgg
Established
additionally
additionally
basically i am after ease of use, the best image quality available, lightness and smallest size of the camera, and the best image quality.
additionally
basically i am after ease of use, the best image quality available, lightness and smallest size of the camera, and the best image quality.
Macpod
Established
Since you are buying into a totally different system, maybe consider olympus EP-1 or the panasonic GF1. both are small like the contax and have interchangeable lenses. No intergrated viewfinders yet though.
The 5D is huge, especially if you plan on using fast zooms, the body itself is not small either. The M9 doesnt have autofocus and is also huge and heavy compared to the olympus and panasonic.
The 5D and M9 will give you less noise and shallower DOF/bokeh though. But coming from film, the noise is negligible. Another critical factor is that if you like using fast ultra wide primes then a full frame DSLR or M9 is the only option
The 5D is huge, especially if you plan on using fast zooms, the body itself is not small either. The M9 doesnt have autofocus and is also huge and heavy compared to the olympus and panasonic.
The 5D and M9 will give you less noise and shallower DOF/bokeh though. But coming from film, the noise is negligible. Another critical factor is that if you like using fast ultra wide primes then a full frame DSLR or M9 is the only option
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
This is something that can't reallty be disputed IMO ... technologically a D700 will indeed kick the Leica M9's butt.
That said if I had the money (which I don't) I'd choose the M9 for it's main advantage of size and the fact that it's manual focus!
But ... if I didn't have the grounding and familiarity with rangefinders that I have, I'd pick the DSLR because I wouldn't know what I was missing anyway and would be thousands of dollars better off!
Mephiloco
Well-known
5d Mk2 is a better camera in terms almost everything, except size. Also, you can get a 50mm sonnar for the 5d mk2, just get one in yashica mount and throw an adapter on it.
Also, about the 5d standing out more than the M9, I beg to differ. No one looks twice at a dslr these days due to how common they are. I NEVER have anyone say anything to me when I have a dslr with a nice 2.8 zoom, but if I have my M2, people always ask me about it because it's so much more uncommon and rare to see nowadays.
Anyways, I have a Canon dslr and the only reason I don't use it much is because of the size, which is a shame because it really does take great pictures, and the tamron 17-50 I use is incredibly sharp (better than my lenses for my M2), but due to the size it stays at home. I grab the M2 because it fits in my jacket pocket with a J8 on it.
Considering your Contax is autofocus, you might have become accustomed AF and going back to manual might be counterintuitive for you. Also, the 5d Mk2 is more rugged but as mentioned, a lot larger, especially when you have fast lenses (which aren't as necessary as they were, due to the excellent high iso performance).
Also, about the 5d standing out more than the M9, I beg to differ. No one looks twice at a dslr these days due to how common they are. I NEVER have anyone say anything to me when I have a dslr with a nice 2.8 zoom, but if I have my M2, people always ask me about it because it's so much more uncommon and rare to see nowadays.
Anyways, I have a Canon dslr and the only reason I don't use it much is because of the size, which is a shame because it really does take great pictures, and the tamron 17-50 I use is incredibly sharp (better than my lenses for my M2), but due to the size it stays at home. I grab the M2 because it fits in my jacket pocket with a J8 on it.
Considering your Contax is autofocus, you might have become accustomed AF and going back to manual might be counterintuitive for you. Also, the 5d Mk2 is more rugged but as mentioned, a lot larger, especially when you have fast lenses (which aren't as necessary as they were, due to the excellent high iso performance).
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Do you need or want video or AF? If the answer is no, get a digital M.
If you later want video you can get a mirrorless camera for cheap, like the Lumix GF1 or the soon-to-be-released Samsung NX10, and mount your leica lenses to it using an adapter.
If you later want video you can get a mirrorless camera for cheap, like the Lumix GF1 or the soon-to-be-released Samsung NX10, and mount your leica lenses to it using an adapter.
fbf
Well-known
Different animals. If weight is not a problem for you, I would go for DSLR.
There are tons of lens choices for Canon DSLRs, much more than Leica M system.
There are tons of lens choices for Canon DSLRs, much more than Leica M system.
peter_n
Veteran
I was never interested in the M8, and have been somewhat put off the M9 by one issue - reliability - the lack thereof. I bought into a dSLR system just over a year ago and for what I use it for it is just fine. My interest in the M9 is waning bit by bit, and to be honest I don't really need it.
bwcolor
Veteran
If you don't care about money, then how do you explain wanting value?
If you don't know what you want, then how can someone else tell you?
These camera types are so different that you must not have a clue what you are looking for, so figure out what you want and you will have your answer without asking anyone anything.
zleica
Established
hrryxgg
Established
thanks again
thanks again
no, i would not need video at all.
the question of being used to AF is pertinent. i wonder if going to manual would be counterintuitive or engage me further in the shots and shooting.
the idea of the olympus and lumix are good, as well.
the leica glass is of paramount importance to me. the size of the unit is a close second.
can the olympus and lumix use the leica m lenses???
interesting points. thank you all.
please keep them coming!
thanks again
no, i would not need video at all.
the question of being used to AF is pertinent. i wonder if going to manual would be counterintuitive or engage me further in the shots and shooting.
the idea of the olympus and lumix are good, as well.
the leica glass is of paramount importance to me. the size of the unit is a close second.
can the olympus and lumix use the leica m lenses???
interesting points. thank you all.
please keep them coming!
easyrider
Photo addict
It depends on what sort of pix you take. Why not rent a DSLR for a few days and see how you like it.
I don't know whether you can rent an M9.
Personally, i would not spend the money on the M9. Look at a Lumix with Leica lenses or a Canon G11.
Your question is a bit like "what car should I buy?"
I shoot with a Nikon DSLR and also own two Leica IIIs and a Rolleiflex. Film is just for fun now.
I don't know whether you can rent an M9.
Personally, i would not spend the money on the M9. Look at a Lumix with Leica lenses or a Canon G11.
Your question is a bit like "what car should I buy?"
I shoot with a Nikon DSLR and also own two Leica IIIs and a Rolleiflex. Film is just for fun now.
Ronald M
Veteran
Leica anything made better images in the flm days. Digi has narrowed the gap considerably.
If you have the money, a M9 is a fine camera within rangefinder limitations. If you like a fine brick of a lens, 50 1.4 Summilus is a great lens. Lighter weight and just as good from F 4.0, the recently discontinued 50 2.8. My go to set up an M body, 50 2.8, 35 2.0 version 4, 90 4.0 Elmar. All fits in a Domke F5.
for more precise composition, an SLR is the way to go. D700 Nikon, and 50 2.0 or 1.8 lens, 35, and 100 2.5. You can get two of these for the price of the Leica, maybe three.
Reporters used Leicas years ago when they could get close. Today 300 2.8 is the norm.
Today nobody but the White House staff photog gets close enough to use a M camera.
SLR have better high ISO files but slower lenses. Slr have better weather sealing. M9 has next to none and water inside makes it uneconomical to repair.
M9 is a nice small package. But a Nikon D90 is also a nice small package. Match with the 35 1.8 as a normal lens. Everyone likes this lens on crop sensor body.
So unless you are died in the wool M guy, get a digi slr.
If you have the money, a M9 is a fine camera within rangefinder limitations. If you like a fine brick of a lens, 50 1.4 Summilus is a great lens. Lighter weight and just as good from F 4.0, the recently discontinued 50 2.8. My go to set up an M body, 50 2.8, 35 2.0 version 4, 90 4.0 Elmar. All fits in a Domke F5.
for more precise composition, an SLR is the way to go. D700 Nikon, and 50 2.0 or 1.8 lens, 35, and 100 2.5. You can get two of these for the price of the Leica, maybe three.
Reporters used Leicas years ago when they could get close. Today 300 2.8 is the norm.
Today nobody but the White House staff photog gets close enough to use a M camera.
SLR have better high ISO files but slower lenses. Slr have better weather sealing. M9 has next to none and water inside makes it uneconomical to repair.
M9 is a nice small package. But a Nikon D90 is also a nice small package. Match with the 35 1.8 as a normal lens. Everyone likes this lens on crop sensor body.
So unless you are died in the wool M guy, get a digi slr.
arnulf
Registered User
If you're used to RF and money is no issue, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the M9. It's a very good camera no matter what they say, believe me. You can still use all your old Leica lenses and the learning curve on going digital will be less steep.
You can use Leica lenses with the Olympus, I believe, but considering the crop factor, it just won't be the same.
But maybe you should, as suggested above, rent an DSLR just to see if you like that better.
Good luck!
You can use Leica lenses with the Olympus, I believe, but considering the crop factor, it just won't be the same.
But maybe you should, as suggested above, rent an DSLR just to see if you like that better.
Good luck!